On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 09:38:07AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Elijah Newren <newren@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > Anyway, your rebase of en/header-split-cache-h-part-3, including
> > Dscho's and Peff's changes, all look good to me.
> >
> > Thanks everyone!
>
> Thanks for confirming. Let's merge it down to 'next' then.
I did a range-diff between en/header-split-cache-h-part-3{1} and the
current tip, and the changes look good to me. It might have been worth
mentioning the #ifndef changes in the commit message for e8cf8ef507
(setup: adopt shared init-db & clone code, 2023-05-16). But I see you
merged to 'next', and I don't think it's worth going back to change it
again.
It's nice when we can get everything in there, but I find that it's not
uncommon to sometimes dig extra details out of the list archive if I
don't understand part of a change when doing archaeology.
-Peff
